I don't see how this will help. FB et. al. work by shoehorning complex nuances into intentionally crude metrics like "engagement.". If they show the engagement-focused algorithm, that shows they're "just trying to engage users."

What would the algorithm show that isn't already apparent?

Most people that want to see the algorithm want that knowledge to use it for their own ends. They are forgetting about the second-order effects where literally everyone will also be doing that, and then they are gaming each other instead of "The Algorithm".

> Controlling what people see is an important power and one that should be regulated.

This will give the power of what people see to the regulators.

Yes. The entire point of government is to delegate important functions that cannot be handled correctly by a "free market" to elected officials, which would include appointing regulators. So that would be the system working as intended.

I don't really think there's enough reason for recommendation algorithms to be publicly reviewable, in many cases the algorithm itself is the most important asset of the product, and in a competitive business environment, you can't really force them to disclose it.

What would be ideal is to think of an incentive for these companies to give users an option to disable the use of their algorithm, aka natural flow. That's unfortunately not the trend things are moving, and even services that still have something like that employ dark-patterns to throw user back into their "controlled" timeline (Twitter for example reverts you back "Home" after a few days with a tiny message that is barely noticeable.)

I'm even willing to pay for a feature that "turns off" the algorithm, unfortunately that would never happen because it'd entail these companies admitting that they design their algos not for the benefit of the user but for stickiness and the dreaded "engagement", which shouldn't be a problem in itself, but then it'd quickly become obvious when they're acting sanctimonious.

I agree that the algorithms should be publicly reviewable. But I'm not sure that solves the central issue which is that there's a tension between what's financially good for social networks (algorithms that increase engagement - which disproportionately favors echo chambers, controversial and shallow content, etc.) and what's good for the general public.

> what's good for the general public.

I personally don't really care what facebook (or anyone else) believes is good for me.

I'll be the judge of that, thank you very much.

And if I want to eat chocolate all day, I'll do that, too.

Social networks aren't in the business of showing you what's "good for you." They're in the business of showing you what's good for them (e.g. things that will increase your engagement).